↓ Skip to main content

Sizing ocean giants: patterns of intraspecific size variation in marine megafauna

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 5,857)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Sizing ocean giants: patterns of intraspecific size variation in marine megafauna
Published in
PeerJ, January 2015
DOI 10.7717/peerj.715
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig R. McClain, Meghan A. Balk, Mark C. Benfield, Trevor A. Branch, Catherine Chen, James Cosgrove, Alistair D.M. Dove, Lindsay C. Gaskins, Rebecca R. Helm, Frederick G. Hochberg, Frank B. Lee, Andrea Marshall, Steven E. McMurray, Caroline Schanche, Shane N. Stone, Andrew D. Thaler

Abstract

What are the greatest sizes that the largest marine megafauna obtain? This is a simple question with a difficult and complex answer. Many of the largest-sized species occur in the world's oceans. For many of these, rarity, remoteness, and quite simply the logistics of measuring these giants has made obtaining accurate size measurements difficult. Inaccurate reports of maximum sizes run rampant through the scientific literature and popular media. Moreover, how intraspecific variation in the body sizes of these animals relates to sex, population structure, the environment, and interactions with humans remains underappreciated. Here, we review and analyze body size for 25 ocean giants ranging across the animal kingdom. For each taxon we document body size for the largest known marine species of several clades. We also analyze intraspecific variation and identify the largest known individuals for each species. Where data allows, we analyze spatial and temporal intraspecific size variation. We also provide allometric scaling equations between different size measurements as resources to other researchers. In some cases, the lack of data prevents us from fully examining these topics and instead we specifically highlight these deficiencies and the barriers that exist for data collection. Overall, we found considerable variability in intraspecific size distributions from strongly left- to strongly right-skewed. We provide several allometric equations that allow for estimation of total lengths and weights from more easily obtained measurements. In several cases, we also quantify considerable geographic variation and decreases in size likely attributed to humans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 696 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 5%
Brazil 5 3%
Portugal 2 1%
France 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 119 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 27%
Researcher 33 23%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 8 6%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 57%
Environmental Science 23 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 17 12%
Unspecified 8 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1013. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,940
of 12,144,780 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#9
of 5,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72
of 277,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#1
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,144,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.